Transient majorities are indeed important because they are all we have, the means by which we mutually accept our leaders. The results of these majorities effectively represent the will of the people, such as it is.
Now how due diligence is defined in this case will likely be defined by a young man, such as yourself, differently from the way in which it would be defined by, say, an eighty year-old, arthritic Floridian. Showing up to a poll at a specified time seems reasonable because this sort of thing has long been a common, clearly expected task not only of citizenship but also of civilized life. The same can be said of speaking and even writing our language. Yet despite these almost universally familiar and expected tasks, we accommodate those who are unable to carry them through in order to register their votes. We do not require they be able to even read, write or travel should they want to participate in the voting process. Punching a chad is hardly as universally expected as traveling, reading and writing, and yet we here demand all people who choose to vote in the common way punch and check their punches to secure their right to vote.
I think it entirely reasonable that if they punched the chad and the chad failed to disengage, we consider the hanging chad a valid vote since punching chads is not exactly a universal method of communication. I wager those who created the hanging chads legitimately thought they were following the instructions to make a hole in the appropriate spot. Others likely thought they had disengaged the chad, but were unable to quickly judge. The hole actually exists and registers the voter’s intent. We might employ human faculties to make up for the technical idiosyncrasies that for no good reason would deny many voters their right to vote. In a sense, the creation of the hanging chad is a system malfunction when we consider the fact that people comprise systems. Registering a vote should be nearly as organic to us as saying "Aye!" or raising a hand. It is a way of self-expression, a concept basic to our way of life. I of course understand the impracticality of doing this, but this impracticality ought not force us to rigidly follow the dictates of a machine when our employing human reason can easily accommodate those who would otherwise be denied their rights.
Had voters written on the ballot when clearly expected to punch, I think your point would be more powerful. But these voters actually did punch, and by misfortune paper failed to dislodge from the ballot. I think we should consider their votes.
I think the current chad system sounds deficient. If merely handling the ballots can cause the chads to fall out, then perhaps a voter can disqualify his own ballot by handling it. |
